Propriety of the Erich Fromm Document Center. For personal use only.

Citation or publication of
material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder.
Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Veröf-
fentlichungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

What Shall We Do With Germany?

Erich Fromm
(1943c-e)

First published under the title “What Shall We Do With Germany?” A Panel Discussion of
Richard M. Brickner’s book Is Germany Incurable?, in: Saturday Review of Literature, New
York, Vol. 26 (29. 5. 1943), p. 10; The numbers in {brackets} refer to the pages of this first
English publication.
Copyright © 1943 and 1980 by Erich Fromm. Copyright © 1999 and 2011 by The Literary Es-
tate of Erich Fromm, c/o Rainer Funk, Ursrainer Ring 24, D-72076 Tuebingen; Fax: +49-
7071-600049, E-Mail: fromm-estate[at-symbol]fromm-online.com.

Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists have often tried to „analyze“ nations, and religious and
political movements. The methodological pitfall common to most of these attempts fol-
lowed the same pattern--the psychoanalyst discovered some similarity between a clinical
symptom and a cultural phenomenon. He then proceeded to establish an analogy be-
tween the two and to explain the cultural phenomenon on the assumption that it was
caused by the same factors which had caused the individual's neurotic symptom. Thus,
for instance, religious controversies were „explained“ as symptoms of compulsive neuro-
sis, political movements as results of an unresolved „Oedipuscomplex,“ socio-economic
systems as caused by neurotic character formations. Social and political factors were not
considered to be „real“ excepting as the rationalized expression of some neurotic symp-
tom. The fallacy of this method has been so discouraging to many social scientists that
most of them did not consider fit worth while to combine psychoanalytic and sociologi-
cal knowledge.
The desire on the part of psychiatrists to make a contribution to victory over the
enemy has resulted in a series of articles and books dealing with the character of the
Germans. Dr. Brickner's bock is one of the outstanding attempts of this kind. To a social
psychologist who has always believed that psychology can make a significant contribu-
tion to our understanding of group behavior, the renewed interest in this problem as
expressed in Dr. Brickner's bock should be very encouraging. All the more must I regret
that the author repeats the methodological fallacy which was typical of the older writ-
ings of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts.
His book, too, employs the method of analogy where a thorough analysis of the
character of the German s is warranted. His clinical description of the paranoid character
is excellent. But his way to prove that „the Germans“--or most of them--fit into this
clinical picture is untenable. He attempts to prove his thesis mainly by quoting German
writers whose utterances have the paranoid coloring which he had described in the clini-
cal presentation of paranoid patients. Quite aside from the fact that it seems dubitable
that one can analyze the character of any nation on the basis of literary quotations, the
author's selection of German writers is lacking completely in objectivity. With few ex-
ceptions, he only quotes nationalistic and reactionary writers who are not more repre-

page/Seite 1 of/von 2
1943c-e
What Shall We Do With Germany?
 Propriety of the Erich Fromm Document Center. For personal use only. Citation or publication of
material prohibited without express written permission of the copyright holder.
Eigentum des Erich Fromm Dokumentationszentrums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. Veröf-
fentlichungen – auch von Teilen – bedürfen der schriftlichen Erlaubnis des Rechteinhabers.

sentative of Germany than reactionary writers are representative of any other country;
as a matter of fact, this same method of quoting certain writers as proof of the evilness
of a whole nation has been used by the Nazis in their attacks on the Jews, French, or
British. Not only is the selection of writers one-sided, the author also quotes particularly
often from books written during the First World War or previous wars which adds to
the bias of his selections. He puts Goethe’s sentence „Hammer or anvil must thou be“ as
a motto to the chapter on the German need to dominate, although Goethe could serve
as an excellent illustration of the very opposite of the „paranoid“ philosophy. One of
the few occasions where the author refers to political movements instead of literature is
the frequent reference to the Pan-German League; here Dr. Brickner is simply misin-
formed about the popularity of this small group of German Tories in pre-Hitler Ger-
many.
It would indeed be most valuable for our war effort if we were correctly in-
formed about the German character. But this task requires more knowledge of the
Germans and a better method than is applied in Dr. Brickner's book. It is true, nations
have a „social character.“ They share certain character traits because they share certain
fundamental experiences to which all members of the group have been exposed. In
order to analyze the social character of any nation, one must study their social, eco-
nomic, political, and cultural situation in its minute details and then proceed to under-
stand how this total situation molded the character structure of the majority of all
members; one must study the intricate interaction of socio-economic, ideological, and
psychological factors which operate in the history of any nation. This can only be
done if one is as thoroughly acquainted and concerned with the history of a nation as
the psychiatrist is acquainted with the individual life history of his patient.
There are good reasons to assume that the result of such serious study will be to
show that great nations differ in certain character traits but not in the sense that some
are essentially good and others essentially evil nor in the sense that some are „healthy”
and others „sick.“ What such study is most likely to show is that the characterological
differences between different social groups within a nation are of great significance.
Germany is a case in point; some of Dr. Brickner's description of the paranoid character
may very well be applied to the German lower middle class, which formed the nucleus
of the Nazi party, and further analysis can show that the reasons for this development
are to be found in the socio-economic position of this class. It would become equally
apparent that the paranoid trends are not characteristic of the vast majority of German
workers, peasants, and middle class.
The increasing literature dealing with a psychiatric approach to the German national
character suggests a twofold danger. On the one hand that psychiatric concepts are used
as rationalizations for political slogans; thus depriving us of valid knowledge which we
need for the conduct of the war and for realistic and rational plans for peace. On the
other hand, that they become a substitute for valid ethical concepts; that they tend to
weaken the sense for moral values, by calling something by a psychiatric term when it
should be called plainly evil.

page/Seite 2 of/von 2
1943c-e
What Shall We Do With Germany?